Posted on 08/11/2015 7:39:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Twenty-four million people tuned in to watch the first primetime debate among 10 Republican presidential candidates. What were they expecting, a love-in?
Some conservative critics dumped on Fox News with a vitriol usually reserved for liberal media.
David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network said Fox (where I appear as a commentator) should be "utterly ashamed," calling the questions asked of Donald Trump "unethical and downright nasty."
"Shame" was a word frequently used by critics of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace.
Rush Limbaugh was slightly more restrained. Limbaugh objected to the "war on women," question asked by Kelly of Donald Trump. Limbaugh said the "war on women" is a Democratic construct and is the kind of question one might expect from the "drive-by media," as he calls the rest of the journalistic pack.
Liberals, like New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, praised the questions asked by the panelists, which will likely further anger conservatives.
While every viewer probably had questions they wish had been asked, overall I thought the panel's choices were fine. The Baier question about whether all the candidates would support the nominee exposed Trump as something less than a party loyalist. He wouldn't say when he had become a Republican after many years as a Democrat and his contributions to Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton, which he said were necessary in order to do business in New York, might sound to some like influence-buying.
Alexandra Petri of the delightfully named Washington Post blog, Compost, wrote that Kelly's "God question" (from a Facebook participant) was not the kind "...that belong on a stage with this kind of stakes." Yes it does, because several of the candidates are openly Christian and often invoke religious language in support of their political positions. It was an appropriate question in 1976 for Jimmy Carter, who was open about his faith. And it was appropriate when reporter Fred Barnes asked Walter Mondale if he was a born-again Christian during his 1984 debate with President Reagan.
As one with some experience in responding to aggressive questioning from liberal TV and radio interrogators, here are some suggestions for the candidates should these questions come up again.
The real war on women is an economy that has left a record 93 million people out of the labor force; 56 million of these non-workers are women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The war on women is also about the 56 million aborted babies who will never have a chance at life thanks to the lies Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers tell women about their babies. The candidate could praise alternative pregnancy help centers where women who have unplanned pregnancies receive help and support and those who have had abortions can experience healing.
A candidate might also respond to the "God question" by saying the belief that God favors America or Americans over other countries and people is idolatry. As the prophet Isaiah said, God sees all nations "like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales" (Isaiah 40:15). That should cause candidates to reconsider Abraham Lincoln's line about it being more important that America is on God's side, than God being on America's side.
Jeb Bush did the best pivot of the evening. Asked about his role as the former director of the Bloomberg Family Foundation, a philanthropic organization headed by Michael Bloomberg, which has donated to Planned Parenthood, Bush said he was there to promote education and knew nothing about the company's contributions to other causes. He then detailed his pro-life record as Florida governor.
That's the way to respond. If the candidate doesn't like a question, deflect it and give an answer to a question that should have been asked.
Liberals praising the Fox panel should encourage panelists at the Democratic debates to follow that network's example and ask tough questions of those candidates, especially Hillary Clinton. But after eight years of the media mostly worshipping President Barack Obama, I'm doubtful that will happen.
We need a poll on this ?
It was never a “debate”.
It was a set of individualized personal attacks, better suited to opponent adds.
A debate allows participants to present their views on a given subject.
They didn't cover issues, they went after National Enquirer questions.
They didn't balance candidate appearance, but some were iced out for 30-40 minutes at a time, while others were given regular face time.
They tried to provoke fights.
It was amateur hour.
When it quacks like a duck.
Fox IS the Liberal Media. Megyn Kelly is an Obama-loving liberal Democrat.
It is true though.
“It was never a “debate”.
It was a set of individualized personal attacks, better suited to opponent adds.
A debate allows participants to present their views on a given subject.”
Best description to date of the farce that was the fox debate.
It was just the latest manifestation of “Boxers vs Briefs.” It was all about the persons asking the questions.
Cal works for Fox right? Or did
And yet, the format was known before-hand. The candidates still participated.
Trump is continuing to act like an ass betraying his lack of real character.
Cal Thomas joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1997 and serves as a political contributor.
I guess I’m curious. If you had to ask a policy question and a character question of each candidate, could you do so by candidate? Not just a question that plays to a candidates strength but one that reveals more than it bolsters.
FNC deserves all the trashing they are getting. Hope they learn a lesson from this.
I hate “fair and balanced.”
We need THE TRUTH AND VALUE.
Who needs the truth balanced with the “fairness” of lies unless you’re employed by the devil himself?
It was a series of "gotcha" questions, primarily aimed Trump and others in the way of Bush. A real debate would have posed the same questions to all members in turn, such as "what would your administration do to improve our position in foreign policy for the United States".
What we got instead was intentionally inflammatory questions designed to attack and skew the vote by arrogant nonachievers whose whole claim to fame is wearing makeup better than most.
Now you know why CNN heaped praise upon the so-called moderators for doing such a ‘great job’........................
That IS his character!...................
I prefer an even simpler format.
Question to each candidate which you have 1 minute to respond to:
1. Qustion 1: “Please explain your tax plan.”
2. Question 2: “Please explain how you would deal with ISIS”
etc.
Character:
3. “Please list any run-ins you’ve had with the authorities since the age of 21.”
Ok... I’ll agree with that.
How about, “His lack of principled or honorable character that would make for good Presidential material.”
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.